amw news article

[Guest guest]

very interesting.to my reading, there are several sets of statistics referred to in the article, each supporting different points, and none of which use the same statistical base.there are, i believe, four studies quoted supporting the idea that bigger is better, and one which supports smaller is better.there is no mention of where the surveyed doctor's practices are, urban, rural, suburban, what the patient's payer sources are, and what the patient's co-morbid conditions may be, along with socio-economic status, all of which may effect care and outcomes.the large, corporate model infers within-the-group referrals for specialty care and patient education, whereas a solo doctor may incorporate patient education into the encounter, and depend on a referral network for specialty care, over which the doctor has no control.it's also clearly stated that solo doctors must not be well-educated and practice a poor quality of medicine, if for no other reason than

that they practice alone. although the practice of medicine has and continues to change, there are some fundamentals of health care and doctoring which haven't, and that's prevention. is it better to help prevent the heart attack or stroke, or to know the latest medication, shortly to be recalled by FDA?the article also infers that use of an emr is very expensive, and that only large, corporate practices can afford them.i think the only way to reasonably determine how good any given patient's health care may be is to apply the same standard across the board.obviously one tool is the "how's your health" questionnaire, but there is another point the article makes which must be addressed-- are we smaller practices in fact prescribing the appropriate treatments for post-MI, post-stroke and diabetes, to name a few.certainly there must be a relatively simple search one can do with one's poor little emr, backward and inexpensive as it may

be.i suspect the large corporate medical groups are scared of small groups and solo practitioners, and by quoting scattered statistics here and there, can sow fear and loathing of us.but then again, i wonder, if the large corporate insurance companies were only to contract with large corporate medical practices, using statistics such as this as their rationale, where will we be left?and if socialized medicine actually happens here in the US, do you think the government will want to contract with solo docs and small practices providing allegedly sub-standard care, or some large corporate entity who "can do it all", supposedly with the outcomes to back it up?what do you think?LL

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.